A Survey of Collaborative Practices by Natural

Resource Managers on Military Lands

Scott Thomas, Ph.D.Stetson Engineers, Inc.Diamondhead, MS(228) 342-0239

Outline

Why is collaboration by the military important?

Survey data: how much collaboration does the military perform?

What drives collaboration? Thoughts on agency culture Conclusions and recommendations

What is Collaboration in Natural Resource Management?

Purpose Communicating intent, sharing information,

coordinating actions, building trust, prioritizing objectives collectively, managing perceptions and expectations, sharing lessons learned, resolving conflict

Outcomes Changed perceptions and increased quality of

decisions

Mandates for Collaboration

1994 DoD Directive on ecosystem management

1998 Sikes Act Improvement Act 2005 Executive Order on cooperative

conservation

Endangered Species and DoD’s Share

Acres of LandNumber of FederallyListed Species

*Adapted from Natural Heritage Data Network - The Nature Conservancy

US ForestService

DoD

BLM

Nat'l ParkService

US Fish& WildlifeService

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Number of Federally

Listed Species

Millions of Acres of Land

Urbanization inSouthern California

Camp Pendleton’s Increasing Responsibility for Regional

Resources 18 T&E Species Riparian

Least Bell’s Vireo - 45% Uplands

Pacific Pocket Mouse - 100%

Riverside Fairy Shrimp - 66%

Estuarine/Beach CA Least Tern - 20% Tidewater Goby - 100% of

SOCAL

Relevance to Management of Coastal Systems

Extensive coastal resources Deep pockets Criticism for lack of collaboration

Regulatory agencies and advocacy groups Consequences

If military installations do not collaborate with regional stakeholders, then they:

– Fail to capture input from external organizations and individuals– Fail to leverage others’ strengths– Fail to consider issues at the spatial scale necessary to address

resource sustainability– Reach lower quality resource management decisions

How well bases collaborate is of interest to:– Military headquarters– Other agencies– State and local governments– Concerned citizens – Conservationists and researchers seeking partnering opportunities

Hypothesis

Military installations are not performing collaboration.

Research Design

Telephone Survey High response rate Control who responds Control question

sequence Clarify misunderstood

questions Stratified Random

Sample Army – 39% Navy – 15% Air Force – 31% USMC – 15%

Population Natural resource management staff at major military installations

Sample unit

Natural resource manager

Sample frame

197 major bases

Sample size

n = 74

Operational Definition An installation is performing collaboration if it:

1. Conducts regular/frequent meetings to share information in region or watershed

Regulators Land management agencies Private groups/citizens

2. Collaborates with outside organizations to conduct research and conservation

3. Solicits input for natural resource planning from outside organizations/individuals

4. Shares results of surveys and studies with outside organizations/individuals

5. Plans at the watershed or eco-regional level6. Natural resource staff indicates that collaboration is a

management priority

Success Criteria

Must be doing at least 4 of the 8 elements during any 6-month period

Rationale: Elements can be performed independently, so

performance of all is not absolutely required However, multiple elements (at least half) must be

employed at a frequency that creates the momentum and synergy necessary for collaboration.

Respondent Attributes

 

Years inPosition (mean)

Years in DoD

(mean)Years in the Field (mean)

% Scientists

% Holding Graduate Degrees

Personnel onStaff (mean)

MC 8 19 18 73 27 9.0

AF 5 11 14 65 43 3.3

N 7 14 17 64 27 1.7

A 11 18 18 93 41 13.4

Installation Attributes

 

Number T&E Species (mean)

Number Acres (mean)

% With FrequentGround Training

MC 5.27 96,909 64

AF 1.87 26,106 4

Navy 8.64 33,143 27

Army 1.86 199,721 66

Implementation Rate

Implementation Rates

% of All Bases*

% Marine* % Air Force*

% Navy* % Army*

Installations performing at least 4 of the 8 collaboration criteria:

74 (+10) 45 (+29) 74 (+18) 91 (+17) 76 (+16)

Installations performing at least 6 of the 8 collaboration criteria:

52 (+11) 36 (+28) 61 (+20) 55 (+29) 52 (+18)

All Bases** Marine Corps**

Air Force** Navy** Army**

Mean rate (out of 8 total success criteria)

5.01 (+0.49) 4.45 (+1.51) 5.22 (+1.02) 5.36 (+0.86) 4.93 (+0.82)

*95% confidence interval for proportion in parenthesis**95% confidence interval for mean in parenthesis

Least Collaboration

Most Collaboration

Implementation RateCriteria % All Bases % Marine

Bases% Air Force Bases

% Navy Bases

% Army Bases

1. Conducts regular or frequent meetings to share information with regulatory agencies in its region or watershed

80 73 78 100 79

2. Conducts regular or frequent meetings to share information with other land management agencies in its region or watershed

66 55 74 56 67

3. Conducts regular or frequent meetings to share information with private groups and/or citizens in its region or watershed

48 27 48 45 55

4. Collaborates with outside organizations to conduct research and/or conservation actions

59 45 57 73 62

5. Solicits input for natural resource management planning from outside organizations and individuals

60 55 70 55 56

6. Shares results of surveys and studies with outside organizations and/or individuals

91 82 83 100 96

7. Is engaged in planning at the watershed or eco-regional level

38 64 30 45 35

8. Natural resource staff indicates that collaboration is a management priority

73 45 86 73 67

Analysis of Variance

Condition Mean Score

1. Installations with significant ground-based training, versus…No significant ground-based training (F = 4.57; p = 0.036)

5.634.59

2. Installations possessing a written EM plan, versus … No written EM plan (F = 14.55; p <0.001)

5.653.85

3. Installations with a natural resource staff = 1, versus Staff = 2, versus Staff = 3 or more (F = 3.64; p = 0.031)

4.264.405.59

4. Installations with threatened and endangered species, versus… Without T&E species (F = 8.11; p = 0.006)

5.494.08

5. Installations where collaboration is a priority, versus … collaboration is not a priority (F =40.11; p<0.0001)

5.883.05

Independent Variables

Demographic Education level of

manager Profession of manager Experience level of

manager Manger’s number of

years with DoD Environmental

Number of listed T&E species

Size of base

Institutional Size of natural resource

staff Service Level of ground-based

training Presence of written

ecosystem management plan

Whether staff perceives that collaboration is a command priority

Level of adaptive management practice

Correlation Analysis:By Service

* 0.05 level of significance met

Independent Variable Dependent Variable Service Pearson’s r Z-score*

Staff size Collaboration comprehensiveness

USMCNavyArmy

.68

.61

.40

2.342.002.16

Staff size Frequency of meetings with other land management agencies

USMCNavy

.65

.712.172.49

Frequency of meetings with regulators

Collaboration comprehensiveness

USMCArmy

.74

.572.713.32

Adaptive management comprehensiveness

Collaboration comprehensiveness

NavyArmy

.75

.652.783.94

Correlation Analysis: Ground-based Training

* 0.05 level of significance met

Independent Variable Dependent Variable Service Pearson’s r Z-score*

Staff size Frequency of meetings with regulators

All Services .44 2.46

Frequency of meetings with regulators

Collaboration comprehensiveness

USMC .85 2.49

Respondent’s number of years in the natural resource field

Collaboration comprehensiveness

All Services .41 2.28

Respondent’s number of years in DoD

Collaboration comprehensiveness

USMC -0.80 -2.19

Number of threatened and endangered species on the installation

Collaboration comprehensiveness

Army .58 2.67

Key Variables Predicting Success

Size of staff Resource manager’s number of years in the field Resource manager’s number of years with DoD

(negative) Prioritization of collaboration by management Presence of significant ground-based training Presence of threatened and endangered species Size of installation Frequency of meetings with regulators Presence of written ecosystem management plan

Challenges for Collaboration

Institutional boundaries are incongruent with natural ones

Agency decision-makers often near-sighted - seek safety in the static and concrete

Fuzzy definitions for key concepts - “sustainability” and “ecosystem integrity”

Incompatible data sets

Military Cultural Factors Influencing

Implementation Conservative culture of the

immediate Hierarchical, authoritative

leadership style Not a culture of inquiry and long-

term planning Goal-oriented and proactive

But defensive in dealing with outsiders

Inexperienced and uncomfortable in eco-regional politics

Driven to an “architecture of simplicity” by focus on control and mission accomplishment Variety and experimentation

suppressed Partnering not embraced

Anecdotal Experience with Collaboration in Agencies

Risk-averse hierarchies stifle innovation, if not explicitly, then through institutional inertia

Conformity is generally valued more than innovation, inter-agency cooperation, or outreach

Information represents power, and is controlled

Public participation is uncontrollable, and therefore feared

Recommendations for Military Resource Managers

• Prioritize collaboration initiatives • Where resource managers perceive

collaboration as a command priority, collaboration rates are higher

• Promote collaboration by focusing on those elements easiest to improve upon:

• Meet with private groups and citizens to share information

• Collaborate with outside organizations for research

• Solicit outside organizations for planning input

Suggestions for Collaborating with Military Natural Resource

Managers

Understand the culture Develop “buy-in” among leaders and staff Don’t assume study results alone will move

the installation to take action Explicitly identify competing objectives Concentrate on collecting regional data,

placing base in context Plan for frequent turnover of military

personnel

Future Research

What are the practical consequences of not collaborating?

Why do managers’ choose to perform some elements of collaboration, but not others?

Are stakeholders in some regions more amenable to, or acceptable within, partnerships than stakeholders in other regions? If so, what attributes drive this condition? Are there different levels of aggressiveness,

motivation, or activity of regulators or activists?

Questions?

Program Attributes

% With Written EM Plan

MC AF Navy Army

Yes, completed 64 65 55 55

Yes, being developed 18 4 9 0

No 18 30 36 45

Don't Know 0 0 0 0

% Compliance Versus Stewardship (mean)Resource managementdecisions driven bycompliance versusconcerns forstewardship

59 60 72 45

Correlation Analysis

* 0.05 level of significance met

Independent Variable Dependent Variable Pearson’s r Z-score*

Staff size Collaboration comprehensiveness .28 2.40

Installation size Collaboration comprehensiveness .23 1.99

Staff size Frequency of meetings with regulators

.29 2.52

Staff size Frequency of meetings with other land management agencies

.24 2.10

Frequency of meetings with regulators

Collaboration comprehensiveness .47 4.31